Oh. Well I’m just talking about the British soldiers who killed an Iraqi man who was walking home one afternoon because he was walking in his direction. He and his buddy opened fire on him and killed him. He was unarmed and coming home from a firend’s house. Man, that was careless.[/quote]
A link to the report? Otherwise we will have to regard this as yet another unsubstantiated claim.
While we are at it, why do you think I am too young to serve in the British Army? I assume that you are accusing me of lying about my service.
If this is the case, you sir are a cad and a bounder. In less enlightened times I would have been forced to give you a horse whipping for ungentlemanly behaviour.
Well, I posted a copy of my work ID & business card (with face & name blacked out) & he still didn’t believe what my job is. He only believes what he wants to! I don’t know what standard of proof he requires - but he certainly expects us to take his word for things (abuse of Gurkhas by British officers, andyone? Or gurkhas being sent in first, even though they were sent in last in FI?)
However, he has managed to change the topic with his low-quality strawman arguments to avoid apologising for calling us all stupid cos we said that the max range of a bullet was not at 45°!
My estimation on the power of an assault rifle hasn’t changed at all - I’ve said all along that they were effective out to 600m in section fire. You were the one who said that after 300-odd metres they dropped out of the sky. Now you’re saying that they can fly for two miles - if they have enough power to fly for two miles, why are they ineffective at 600m?
Boy? I think I have earned the right to be called a man, don’t you? Especially by someone who has not done anything to earn that right.
I’ve changed no story, we account for all of the rounds we have fired. If I fire one round, I account for one round. If I fire 30, I account for 30. If you hit someone with that round, then you would could reasonably expect to have to stand up in a court of law and explain why you fired that round. Therefore it would be a good idea to know where your rounds were going, rather than, say, firing on automatic out of the windows of a moving vehicle.
Even aimed shots can miss a target and hit someone else, or else the wrong person can be targetted.
No hypocrisy, a video was shown of US soldiers firing their rifles out of a moving vehicle. THAT IS RECKLESS BEHAVIOUR THAT WOULD NOT BE TOLERATED BY THE BRITISH ARMY.
Every casualty caused by the British Army is investigated properly and if any wrong doing is found, then the soldier finds himself in court defending his decision to fire.[/quote]
Apologies for quoting my own post, but I’ve been waiting for Ironman to rely to me for the last 3 hours :roll:
Yea, well, shooting unarmed Iraqis walking down a street, like some Brits did not long abo violates all of the rules I’m sure!
I doubt it since the weapons fire was into the air like that. They didn’t fire aimlessly at the streets.
Neither is dropping bombs in city streets and killing groups of Iraqi citizensm like the British did at Basra.
OK, so soldiers in both the US and british military have to account for what they shoot at. So I don’t see the point of bringing it up then. Why were you carrying on about it? Surely you can seem my point.
Well look, I’m not into trying to make the British look bad. I’m only reacting to this mythical garbage spewed by some that US soldiers are careless wildcats and a british soldier’s sh*t doesn’t stink. It’s simply perposterous. Bad things happen in war, and all armies make bad mistakes, the US, the British, everyone. But it’s simply hypocritical for anyone to carry on about a soldier shooting a weapon out of a window into the dessert to make noise to clear the street when he’s being shot at by grenades in his moving vehicle on a crowded Iraqi boulevard. Surely you can see the attitude of such blather.
What does it say in the Bible about a it being easier to push a log through the eye of a needle than to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye? Something like that.
In the video the soldier is firing at about a 35 degree angle or so, off into the clouds. But it’s just silly to complain about that when British soldiers have made far aggregious mistakes (as the US has I am sure). It is hypocritical and hatefull.
BDL is waiting for IRONMAN to reply? That’s just hateful anti-american blather! Your insolence is too much for me. I have nothing further to say on this matter (except for the posts I will continue to make).
Well, I posted a copy of my work ID & business card (with face & name blacked out) & he still didn’t believe what my job is. He only believes what he wants to! I don’t know what standard of proof he requires - but he certainly expects us to take his word for things (abuse of Gurkhas by British officers, andyone? Or gurkhas being sent in first, even though they were sent in last in FI?)
However, he has managed to change the topic with his low-quality strawman arguments to avoid apologising for calling us all stupid cos we said that the max range of a bullet was not at 45°![/quote]
Worthlessness. Man of Stoat working hard to keep his reputation up.
Then take a hike. All you’ve had to say thus far is blathering hypocricy about a soldier firing into the sky when British soldiers are shooting civies in the chest as they walk down the street.
Then take a hike. All you’ve had to say thus far is blathering hypocricy about a soldier firing into the sky when British soldiers are shooting civies in the chest as they walk down the street. [/quote]
Again, please could you post a link to a report of the incident in question.
Also, please could you explain your insinuation that I have lied about my service.
Scroll down to where it says “European Patent Office - Branch at The Hague”, ring the telephone number there & ask to speak to extention 8942. You will find that I will pick up the phone.
I’m here for another hour, probably. I’m awaiting your call, troll.
Then take a hike. All you’ve had to say thus far is blathering hypocricy about a soldier firing into the sky when British soldiers are shooting civies in the chest as they walk down the street. [/quote]
Shooting in the chest suggests an aimed shot, firing on automatic into the sky suggests undisciplined soldiers who should not be in any country’s uniform. Who else do we see firing into the air on automatic? Other professional soldiers? No. Various tin pot guerillas/terrorists/African/Asian armies? Yes.
Which would you rather you had your country’s soldiers compared to?
No? It’s not hypocritical to carry on about a soldier shooting into the sky when British soldiers kill innocent civilians by shooting straight at them? Was that tolerated by the British Army any more than the US Army tolerates such? Are you implying that when US soldiers make such a trajic mistake they get a scolding and more ammo while british soldiers get the ringer? Come on dudey. Start making sence for God’s sake.
No? It’s not hypocritical to carry on about a soldier shooting into the sky when British soldiers kill innocent civilians by shooting straight at them? Was that tolerated by the British Army any more than the US Army tolerates such? Are you implying that when US soldiers make such a trajic mistake they get a scolding and more ammo while british soldiers get the ringer? Come on dudey. Start making sence for God’s sake.[/quote]
Stop calling me stupid fucking names, for the love of God. If a British soldier kills a civvie, then incident is investigated and the soldier could well be prosecuted. If an American soldier, for example, machine guns a car carrying three Italian secret service agents and a hostage they’ve just rescued, what happens?
So can you explain your hypocricy in attacking the US troops for accidental deaths when the British have killed many unarmed iraqi citizens with careless fire? Please, let’s hear that.[/quote]
Find where I have made this claim.
HINT: I didn’t.[/quote]
So, you’re just on the bandwagon like a pack dog eh? :lol:
It’s funny how a search for your name turns up a lot of pages where the name 'festumus" does not exist. How do you suppose that is?[/quote]
(Firstly it would help it you spelt it “festamus” and not “festumus”. Your rabid fits of rage really DO cause you struggle with reading, don’t they?)
Well, I’m not a former soldier, and therefore less qualified than others to comment on the fire discipline of the soldiers in that video. I still read with interest and came across something I am well qualified to comment on (e.g. drag), having a Master’s degree in Aeronautical Engineering and all… And has NOTHING to do with my being British. I could have been Mongolian and you’d still have been wrong and you’d STILL have been rude to anyone who politely tried to explain to you.
Someone posted that 45 degrees is NOT the trajectory for maximum range unless in a vacuum. Which is TRUE. You then posted that it is not, completely missing the parts in your “evidence” which actually state that it is only true without air resistance, in a vacuum etc (all amounting to NO drag).
Someone pointed out your error. You clearly couldn’t accept the word of THAT Aeronautical Engineer, so blinded you are by… well who knows what motivates you to act stupidly… because you responded to an entirely correct, factual post (without any insults to you might I add) with
Nope. It’s just mathematics. They did the math it for you.[/quote]
I see this and see you are clearly having difficulty reading what is written to you. That is you are so blinded by the mathematics - which in the case of a vacuum are beautifully elegant and simple - that you fail to reflect on the physical nature of the question. There is DRAG messing up this 45 degree thing. It is NOT in a vacuum. So I put it in terms you’d understand.
Well it’s NOT just mathematics, it’s Physics. Otherwise you’re saying that aerodynamic drag doesn’t exist and hence the trajectory remains 45 degrees since their example said so.
Given the speeds of rifle rounds, the drag forces involved will be significant. To say otherwise you’d have to disagree with yourself - why else would you have contended that the effective range of an assault rifle for section fire cannot be 600m? Where’s all that energy gone by 600m if not lost to significant aerodynamic drag?
To which you replied
Which aside from the insults, misses ENTIRELY that I said “not just mathematics”. Notice. “not just”. You couldn’t even get that right! Never mind the meaning of what you were being told with regards to the Physics of the problem. “Whacked physics” being what happens in the real world, by the way. And my “clue” being a Masters degree on matters such as aerodynamic drag and my “blather” being… an entirely accurate, factual post! Oh my!
So quite frankly, you are quite welcome to accuse me of jumping on the band wagon like a pack dog, but the evidence in this thread (provided you don’t edit it of course) stands that you acted like an utter ****** who rather than say “Ah! I see what you mean!” to perfectly reasonable, factual posts, acted like a childish, ignorant fool.
I posted factually on something I am qualified to comment on. YOU insulted and now you’ve been made to look like an utter fool by shooting your own mouth off, not by the actions of anyone else. And then, instead of apologising for being very rude and quite frankly, you try to wriggle out of it, going off on a tangent attributing claims to me that I never made. And when THAT fails, I’m a pack dog jumping on a bandwagon? All this for making a factual post about the effect of aerodynamic drag on the trajectory of a bullet?!?! Hilarious. There’s a lesson in there for you.
People don’t jump on the bandwagon of disliking you Ironman. Oh no. Instead, you act like a total pr*ck to leave them with no choice. (oh and moderators: feel free to edit and even punish me for it, but in light of the last IRONMAN post quoted above, I feel it stands as a factual observation and won’t edit it myself until he apologises for his unwarranted attacks on people making factual posts, or he receives appropriate punishment for his)
Your eagerness to advertise your own stupidity and rabid dislike of anyone who rightly disagrees with you knows no bounds.
" " ??? Yes, we laughed as well Ironman. We laughed as well.
Scroll down to where it says “European Patent Office - Branch at The Hague”, ring the telephone number there & ask to speak to extention 8942. You will find that I will pick up the phone.
I’m here for another hour, probably. I’m awaiting your call, troll.[/quote]
Dude, you were helplessly confused about a simple illustration of a textually described utterly simple device. You thought the insulator was the conductor and the conductor was the insulating material, you even thought a primer could not blow without electrically conductive explosive, like patented devices already do. No. I do not believe you are a patent inspector. You can post a letter from the Chief Patent Inspector for all I care. Either way, you made many false assumptions and were totally lost. I have no interest in the subject anymore, so now you want to drag it in here like you do with all the shitbags subjects you you draaaaag around from one thread to another. Always draaaaaging something around behind you, stinky and filled with false implications and hatefulness. Draaaag it aropund for here to there.
I think it’s pretty stupid to help prove that the US soldier fired his weapon as far as it would into the dessert. Damn. Those US soldier know their chit!
I think it’s pretty stupid to help prove that the US soldier fired his weapon as far as it would into the dessert. Damn. Those US soldier know their chit![/quote]
Do American soldiers dislike ice cream that much?
Answer my previous questions! I will let the one about the link go, but you have made a personal insult and I want an answer!
